Britain’s Messy Divorce

As Britain formally triggers the doleful negotiations to exclude itself from the mainstream of European politics and economics, Prime Minister Theresa May refuses to call what is happening by its correct name. But the UK is certain to emerge from the proceedings poorer – and probably less democratic.

LONDON – As Britain formally triggers the doleful negotiations to exclude itself from the mainstream of European politics and economics, Prime Minister Theresa May refuses to use the word “divorce” to describe what is happening. My wife, a retired family lawyer and mediator, thinks May could be correct. After all, the family house we are exiting still contains much of our history and family silver, as well as our future economic interest. In that sense, divorce is scarcely an option.

Britain has not been as insular an island as some people take it to be. From our reigning royal family (which is German) to our exports (overwhelmingly to Europe), we have helped to shape and in our turn been shaped by developments in the rest of Western Europe. We are separated by just 20 miles (33 kilometers) of water – these days, apparently a very wide 20 miles – at the Strait of Dover.

So why are we leaving? The cause is a mixture of frustration, delusion, mendacity, and bloody-mindedness. We were fed up with Europe’s inability to tackle some of its biggest challenges – from competitiveness to immigration – without seeking to acquire more central powers.

Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is Chancellor of the University of Oxford.

Months after the referendum that shook the world, the fallout from Brexit, including the likely economic costs, remains unsettled. Theresa May's government is still wrestling with the basic question of what type of relationship with the EU Britain wants, while European leaders are struggling to develop a united front for negotiations.

The original goal of the European union was that it would be be a bulwark against the Soviet state, a market large enough to efficiently compete with the US (and now China) and an alternative to the internecine European wars of the last 800 years. Well, so far so good, maybe too good. What the Brexeteers have promised seems like very nebulous notions of pie in the sky economics and past national glory, A past glory based upon Britain's industrial revolution, its colonies and geography, and its ability to balance contiguous continental powers against any rival. Those conditions no longer exist.

A cliff indeed beckons, but it's not Brexit without a trade deal. The *real* cliff-edge the globe faces is the automation-driven unemployment tsunami that is round the corner. 35-50% of all professions are set to be automatable within a decade - the totally possible nightmare scenario being, unemployment running at 6-8 million in the UK in a decades' time. In this context, Brexit is a very big short-term plus. The issue is benefits - the UK is generating jobs, and is therefore attracting a vast quantity of migrant labour. There are currently 3m EU workers in the UK - without Brexit, this was set to double in the next few years to 6m - roughly a quarter of the entire UK workforce. Parking for a moment the pressure this would put on local housing, services and local wages, my question is: what happens when automation hits a tipping point in around 5-7 year time, and the unemployment tidal-waves start crashing on all countries of the globle simultaneously?
The UK ends up with a dirty great benefits liability, into prepetuity, for non-UK citizens, as per EU law, all for the sake of a bit of extra growth for another half a decade or so. Local workers who have seen their wages go backwards over the last decade would end up sharing what is left of the benefits pot, ironically, with the very people undercutting their wages right now. Remaining in the EU, the UK would effectively be punished for being successful.

As a UK citizen, I firmly believe the UK should prioritise UK citizens over non-UK citizens. Trading off perhaps 50-70 billion extra to the Exchequer from the extra growth that open EU migration would bring over the next 5-7 years, against an open-ended benefits liability, for non-UK citizens, of potentially hundreds of billions, seems like a very bad deal to me. Why go there when you can see what's coming? If anyone can give a coherent answer to this question, I would love to arguments.

** let me preempt those people who will want to claim that new jobs will arise to replace those that are going to be lost: automation isn’t three decades away, it’s not even three years away, it’s here now. Unless you can point, right now, to what those new jobs and fields are, I venture to suggest you have lost that argument.

You must be a Brexiter. Patten's article is excellent and it doesn't need the HK comparison - I could have written this; indeed have frequently done so in comments in the Guardian's cif. Brexit was badly handled and pandered to extreme nationalists (increasing as the age levels got higher) and little englanders. It was a collective burying of heads in the sand. What annoys me most is that nobody suffered by staying in the EU (apart from wounded amour propre) but hundreds of thousands have been directly hit through their jobs and enterprises. It is a disaster.

After the great job you did with Hong Kong, Mr. Patten, turning it over to China while pretending that it would remain a free society, the temerity you show in fawning over the EU should not come as a complete surprise.

The relationship between the UK and the EU has never been a marriage, e.g., the UK never gave up its independent currency. It was a limited arrangement, sort of a marriage of convenience. After four decades, one partner has decided that it didn't like the direction the arrangement was heading and decided to terminate it. That is what a free people can do - but Patten seems to want the UK to be like Hong Kong, to be subservient to a greater power while keeping the money flowing to a few well-placed recipients. Now the dons will have to find another source of funds. how sad.

" From our reigning royal family (which is German) to our exports (overwhelmingly to Europe),"

The sort of simplistic nonsense that we have come to expect from Remainiacs-firstly the Royal Family is not German, they are British. There were some Germans 170 or so years ago but since then there have been Danes and Greeks as well-and of course the "Germans" (Hanoverians) were descended in the maternal line from the Stuarts which is why they got the crown in the first place. Like many Britons (myself included) they have mixed ethnic heritage -including from the Prophet Mohammed via the Infanta of Castille.

As to our exports going overwhelmingly to "Europe"-since when has 46% been overwhelming-and that includes the Rotterdam effect.

I get that as a former EU Commissioner Chris Patten is bound by his EU Oath to put the EU above all else but why the fake facts?

As chancellor of Oxford I would be a little less negative and more focused on making the best of it. May is not going to give her ear to yet another lament. She is looking to reward doers. Oxford and the universities have lots of challenges and should be tackling them forcefully but with a can do approach. That is what gets attention and help

I remember 2012 as a kind of glorious year in UK memory, with everyone on the streets celebrating united like very few countries can show the Queen Jubilee and the London Olympics...
... fast forward just 5 years, and it would difficult to concieve what we are witnessing today in the UK with the eyes we had back then... desunion and division are rampant.
A move like the EU exit, given the huge impacts (positive and negative) involved, would benefit (I would argue even "require") enormously from having a country united (at least to a minimum) behind, as opposed to divided. Just take other paralelisms in country decision-making, like for instance changing a Constitution or going to Full War (ie WWI or WWII).
I do not believe the country is ready (in terms of united emough) for successfully dealing with what is coming; also, it has been a great failure by politicians of all colours not to put the means since Jun.16, taking all the time and effort needed, to change that situation instead of rushing to push the art.50 buttom.
Now, the buttom has been pressed and the negotiation machinery is in motion... so seems like too late for gathering strength from internal union (eg Scotland has moved as well).
Best luck to the UK and people from everywhere that we live here. Best luck to the EU as well as how this exit is handled will undoubtedly affect the union of the EU itself.

Actually it was a mere 37.5% of voters - i.e. registered voters, several miliion of which did not vote. Furthermore if you add to the control total the number eligible but not registed (many under 25) you are looking at just over a third of the adult population that have precipitated this monumental constitutional change!

Ahhh Chris Patten, arch Europhile and under the terms of payments of pensions and other emoluments you are sworn never to bad mouth the EU for risk of all of those goodies being terminated.
The Brexit decision was, actually a logical result from 40 years of expense and failure in the EU. Did the EU bring us cheaper food prices? Did it bring us better economic growth? Did it bring us a workable currency? Did it bring us better security? Did it prevent mass inward migration? Has the half billion pounds we have made a nett contribution of had any obvious and direct benefits to the UK? Do we export more to the EU than they export to us? Does Europe allow the UK to actively market our services in the same way we have opened our markets to Europe? Can the EU do international trade deals? Does the EU speak with one voice? Has the EU supported NATO at 2% as it is obliged to? The list of failures of the EU goes on and on and on, but of course Mr. Patten glosses over these manifest failures simply as "fed up with Europe's inability to tackle some of its biggest challenges" too right they are many and varied and getting bigger and more dangerous as this collapsing structure itself lurches towards the cliff edge.
The Eu had 45 years to get its act together and it is still in chaos with no sign of progress any time soon. Why? A combination of factors I would argue. Incompetence at the top - the EU is a recruiting ground of failed national politicians, some with the taint of dodgy deals (Junker being a case in point) and a strong bias to socialist/communist sensibilities. Shultz himself (a linguist) gets the top job when his main commercial experience is "running a bookshop" and he pretends he has the skills to then manage 28 complex modern economies?
Anyone in change management will know and understand that dealing with "cultural change" is the toughest job out there - the EU was doomed to fail, not just because it was wildly ambitious (although it was) not just because it was far too unwieldy (which it has become) but rather because you have 28 different languages; psyches; needs and aspirations that simply were NEVER going to be satisfied by a one size fits all approach and the EU and its elite were insane to ignore this. The chaos the EU is causing in economies as they all seek to emulate a Franco/German vision of the EU has cause terrible suffering across Europe. The UK has borne the brunt of a lot of this, vast migration to the UK from poverty stricken eastern European countries, with people desperate to get away from poverty pay and the dead hand of ex soviet governments, has cause massive stresses to the UK and caused mayhem in community cohesion and overcrowding. The EU had every chance to give the UK what it wanted and need to stay, but in the end its "principles" which no one in the UK ever signed up to nor were ever consulted about voted that they had had enough.
No Mr Patten, the vote was a verdict on people like you who took from the taxpayers and did not listen; act or respect the needs of the electorate in Europe, as elites such as yourself ploughed ahead regardless of the damage that was being done to communities; the young and our debt ratios. The EU has failed on just about ever objective it set itself - sure peace in Europe has been secured, but that has probably been due to the fact most countries are fighting like cats in a bag within the EU rather than outside of it.
This is not a messy divorce as you say, we haven't started yet and we were never married - if you have forgotten no one in the UK ever voted to join the EU anyway - we joined the EEC it was presumptive elites such as yourself who changed the terms and the rules without consultation. What we have is a situation where the UK has been co-habiting with Europe for 45 years and has come to the conclusion it is a drunken bum, not able to earn its own way in the world but happy to keep taking from the diminishing countries who contribute. France hasn't changed just as subsidy dependent as ever, and with debt mutualisation and the crumbling Euro everything is flashing red. I realise that you were honour bound to make a side swipe at your own country (very patriotic) and claim we are suffering from some sought of delusional psychosis, I would prefer to say that probably the revers is true - we have woken up in a living nightmare and recognise that now is the time to go and find new partners and new associations that will set the blueprint of the future trade of the world, because the EU have proven it doesn't have the skills or prospects to get out of the mess it is in.

Christine, that is the most comprehensive demolition of this article - I was going to post saying Patten has been so narrow in his appraisal that one wonders why PS has given him space. Surely someone of his stature can bring something new and valid to the table? This is just recycled material from standard Remain press, e.g. the Economist. Well done!

Chris Patten expects a "messy divorce" when Theresa May triggers Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on Wednesday that will lead to a bitter breakup between Britain and the EU. During the two-year "divorce" talks, both sides will haggle over a wide range of issues. While Britain hopes that it won't be embroiled in an acrimonious bargaining with the EU, the 27 member states can hardly afford to be kind when they come to ratify any deal with Britain.
The outcome can be a jarring reminder to Leave voters - they say their nation had opted for a latter-day declaration of independence, one that would give the country back its rightful place as one of the world’s eminent powers - that Brexit isn't just a "divorce" between Britain and the EU, it is as much a "divorce" between England and the rest of the United Kingdom. As rural England triumphed over the metropolitan centres, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted overall to remain, the UK is deeply and bitterly divided, grappling with an existantial crisis, which may one day lead to its breakup. It's unclear how it can be easily unified, given the angry mood on both sides.
Indeed, the "Leave" camp still believes the UK will be better off unshackled from the burden of the troubled Eurozone economies, and that renegotiation of trade agreements with the EU will be easy, without realising that Britain would negotiate from the position of a weak suppliant, and that it could take decades. Even if all goes smoothly, there are good reasons to doubt May's optimism. Leaving the EU involves two sets of negotiations. One – the Article 50 – is about the modalities of ensuring a smooth "divorce." The other will be about the nature of any new deal with the EU.
Experts on trade don't believe that a comprehensive deal could be struck within the deadline. Two years may seem a long time, but in reality, it's around 18 months, when all breaks are factored in. But according to May's ministers - "it doesn’t matter if we have no deal at all. We will simply walk away. No deal would not necessarily be a bad outcome, they insist, because the world is eager to do more business with us, which will be cheaper in the future as sterling continues its steady decline."
Britain's "parliamentary democracy" became a victim of "such populist devices" last June, and Theresa May has dutifully accepted that "52%" of voters had spoken. She handed the negotiations to three prominent Brexit leaders - Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox - who would "then put the result of the talks in due course to parliament and the people." She has also "turned the whole of her government into a Brexit machine, even though she had always wished to remain in the EU. Her government’s motto is now “Brexit or bust.” Sadly, we will probably get both."
Indeed, David Cameron will live to regret holding this disastrous referendum, by altering the system by which young people came on to the register. Instead of being automatically eligible to vote upon reaching the age of 18, they had to go through a conscious act of registering. "As with any divorce, we can be fairly confident that it is the children who will suffer the most." Many young Britons favour remaining in the EU, but their turn-out wasn't significant. They are the ones who genuinely worry about their future. Yet Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary has an idea - Britain's youth should take up the fruit picking and farm labouring jobs currently done by EU migrants. She'll be disappointed, because they have lofty ambitions and seek to emigrate, instead of languishing in Britain.

"We were fed up with Europe’s inability to tackle some of its biggest challenges – from competitiveness to immigration – without seeking to acquire more central powers. "

More deceit from Patten. Europe does have dire immigration and competitiveness problems. However, they are a consequence of too much Europe, not too little. The European Court of Justice (AKA The Law According to ISIS) has sabotaged any effort to restrict immigration and enforce immigration laws. The Euro has savaged competitiveness in much of (perhaps most of) Europe. Too much, not too little, Europe is the disease. Brexit is the cure.

Patten does not mention the elephant in the room- viz. Labour's foolish decision to not exercise its right to limit mandated migration till it had reformed its entitlements system and built capacity to accommodate the inflow. The voter is rational. He is punishing Labour- but also that same elitist mindset among certain Conservatives- for this arrant failure to safeguard national interests.

Britain was not part of Shengen and not directly affected by Merkel's shilly shallying over enforcing border control in the Mediterranean. Thus Britian did not have much say on this issue. But it should have alerted Europe to the dangers involved. Merkel's demand that all countries- irrespective of their economic plight or demographic condition- accept a quota of refugees showed that Europe's leaders were living in a fantasy world. What if there was a backlash in Europe- more especially in countries new to Democracy? Merkel would have destroyed the one achievement of the post Cold War world for no reason whatsoever. Britain's leaders were happy to get involved in foolish interventions in the Middle East alongside their French and other counter-parts- like Hilary Clinton. But Britain's leaders were not prepared to speak 'truth to power' and remind Brussels that large sections of the European population are facing a precarious future. Ethical grandstanding is not an option.

Patten is by no means a fool. Yet, this article shows that he is stuck in the past. He thinks British voters are stupid. So did I the morning after the Referendum result. So did many people. But when we talked to our neighbours who voted for 'Brexit' we saw that there was another side to the picture. The UK needs a lower real exchange rate as well as better Social Cohesion funding- only possible if entitlements are closely linked to voting rights. It needs an Industrial policy- I know, I know, how old fashioned! how dull! But Economics has moved on since the Seventies. We need to think of the 'Social Contract' as an 'incomplete contract'. We need to identify sources or risk and volatility and do proper mechanism design such that uncertainty drives innovation- not offshoring.

Cameron and May showed respect for the Referendum result because they knew that playing dilatory politics would destroy their party. This gamble has paid off. UKIP doesn't have a single MP. Corbyn, thanks to his Leftist antecedents, has resisted the temptation to claim a sort of Blairite moral high ground because that high ground has been irremediably tainted by Blair himself. Labour will survive to fight on Social Cohesion. The Tories can't have it all their own way. But it is Europe which needs to reform itself. What you have now is 'collective irresponsibility'. Heads of State prop each other up in taking foolish positions. Obama blamed Britain and France- not Hilary- for the Libyan quagmire. Neither Britain by itself, nor France by itself, would have meddled so disastrously. However, when they came together you got a disaster similar to Suez.

Patten speaks of a divorce. Perhaps he believes that a married couple surrender some portion of their sovereignty to each other. Thus if I want to vote Tory, my spouse can veto my decision. In practice, some this like this may indeed obtain. However, legally, this is not the case. A person I love, or whom I live with, may indeed be able to veto some actions of mine. This does not change whether or not we are legally married.

Patten is saying 'in a divorce the kids suffer'- i.e. Brexit will hurt our youth. However, the fact is our youth is already suffering. Their jobs are precarious. Their entitlements subject to arbitrary sanctions. The dream of home ownership has disappeared for the majority. Student loans crush their financial prospects. Yes, some can emigrate. What about those who need to look after a disabled relative? Will Social Services plug the gap? Maybe in Scotland. Not in England.
High real exchange rates benefit older people like me- expectations in this respect have perverse implications for the property market, which once again benefits only the well-off section of the older populations. EU membership protects vested rents. Brexit is disruptive and will hurt the wealthy and older section of the population. It may boomerang on the young as well. However, they faced a bleak future under the old order so their downside is limited. As for older people- well, we will die sooner or later. I marvel that many well off older people voted for Brexit solely because they wanted better life-chances for the young. That is one positive aspect of Brexit we should keep in mind.

Bravo you understand the problem. ONe size does not fit all and in the end (perhaps) by the UK having thrown itself under the EU horse and we forge a new way forward which delivers to us a better industrial strategy and a better democracy through devolution then Europe will have an alternative vision and not one controlled by elites whose only response to chaos is "more Europe". To those enlightened and educate the EU was a very dangerous development for democracy and freedom an EUSSR and if the EU attempt to "punish" the UK then all of Europe will see for itself what a spiteful and dangerous creature it truly is.

One of the problems we are witnessing nowadays is the inability of sensible conservatives to move away from conservative parties. Populism, and the small minded, took the conservative core and are dragging all with them to positions and I don’t understand how sensible people can support.

It’s time for people to stop being so dogmatic and face that if you support a bigot you are a bigot yourself. Politics isn’t football, the positions you take or support mater to all of us.

And before you drop an atomic bomb, are people gone get those changes from Trump or May? I highly doubt that. Still, the underlying theme of the referendum and election was a protest vote against status quo and the actual consequences be damned. Are people gone be better off under Trumponomics, probably not, but they wanted something different, even if they suspected that they might be worse off in future. I'm pretty sure that this assessment is closer to reality rather than your "basket of deplorables" position.

Jose as usual with his rosy color glasses on. No Jose, its not a choice between populism and neoliberalism, rather between have and have nots. You give garbage identity politics too much credence. Common people don't care about that garbage. Its always been, is and will be about economy. Bill Clinton knew it, Hillary didn't and obviously neither do you. The huge majority of people didn't vote for Trump or Brexit because of immigration, or some other opaque ideas. They voted because they knew that Hillary or sticking with EU represented 4 more years of Obamanomics. Awesome for Wall Street and globalists, but declining living standards for everyone else. Make the economy more inclusive and you and your fellow liberals won't have to go through your blame game exercise. BTW, that stuff is getting old.

Jose, politics is vacating the centre ground, it only leaves left or right. By definition you will have people who would normally be centristpushed to one side or the other. BTW there was nothing moderate about the original Brexit arguments and the main reason why the Remain lost in my opinion is they could not say the City and Banks would be hit by Brexit because so many people in the UK hate the banks. There were major efforts prior to Brexit vote by the UK to keep the City a key FX and Euro EU player because it is such a significant earner and tax payer for the UK, but not a word about it in the Brexit arguments

I'm ok if you share the points of view, it makes sense, but the question now is that the leadership of most of the conservative parties is so far off sensible positions, that I don't understand how people support them.

Probably not the case of the original Brexit where the official position was moderate, but now how can you review yourself on the party?

Same goes in the Trump case, where if you are a free trader, efficient market defender, or even a libertarian you cannot see your positions reflected in the Republican party.

History will not look kindly on the political and opinion leaders who are responsible for Brexit, which may turn out to be the "open sesame" of disintegration of Great Britain.
Brexit is the case study par excellence to convey the deep meanings of the followings:
1. Remember the idiom "Be careful of what you wish for?"
2. The Pandora Box.
3. The genie is out of the bottle.
4. The Sword of Damocles.

I was denied the right to vote on the signing of the EU constitution. It came like a thief in the night with its supports having to rebadge it with lies to the extent that the British were told that there was not intention to create a united Europe with a head of state. yet come the first EU council meeting the elections that had already been held were used to impose just that. No consent, no consultation, in the UK UKIP had won those elections, and Junker had not a single vote. The EU in a stroke had become the anti-democratic evil German empire bent on controlling every aspect of lives with rules like freedom of movement that somehow Germany could exemption to but bark orders at us Brits for wanting to do the same as them. Mr Pattern oversaw the end of any chance of democracy in Hong Kong, his reign in charge of BBC complaints was one that saw that the BBC turned into some sort of lord "haw haw" pro EU propaganda organisation, so Pattern only speaks for the elite.

The question that must be asked and answered why are the British Judiciary and the British Establishment against the British Expatriates? The British Judiciary banned the British Expatriates from voting in the Brexit Referendum (which helped sway the total tally of the votes) and the British Establishment, after over 100 years, they now decided to extort the British Expatriates from their hard earned money which they invest mostly in the UK economy? It is utter disgrace, the Tories and the British establishment are in it together, they misled the British Public and used the British Expats as scapegoats in this whole utter madness, Bojo and his alleged perceived arch enemy D. Cameron have been celebrating together in NY, in the big rotten apple.

What Patten calls "Europe" is really German oppression of the rest of Europe. Actually, is it just the corrupt alliance of identity politics left (Fisher) and the economic right (Schäuble) with Merkel combining both evils in one person.

When Germany declared that it would take an unlimited number of "refugees" (illegal economic migrants in real life), Germany violated several European agreements (notably the Dublin Regulation). Now Germany wants to impose its unilateral policy disaster on the rest of Europe. Not surprisingly the rest of Europe isn’t interested.

Germany under Merkel choose to attack the rest of Europe. Europe (and many Germans) are fighting back. No one in Europe should be subject to the EuroReich’s tyranny and oppression. Merkel’s vision of paradise is clearly a (German) jackboot stomping on the face humanity forever (while prattling on about “human rights”, Open Europe, “we can do it”, etc.)

What does the Patten/Merkel EuroReich offer to the people of Europe? Sadly, we know the answer all too well. It is Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, banlieues, tournantes, Cologne, Molenbeek, Rosengård, etc. forever. If anyone does to challenge the EuroReich/EuroElite they can expect a “hate” crimes trial in short order. Sadly, the EUSSR and the USSR are becoming ever more alike.

Of course, the evil of the EUSSR doesn’t end with Cologne and Bataclan. The Euro has brought devastation to much of Europe with no hope of recovery (or debt relief) as long Herr Merkel is in charge. Yet another (German) jackboot stomping on the face humanity forever.

There is a useful quote from Mikhail Gorbachev on this point.

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”

The USSR was evil. The EUSSR is little better. Time for a change. Brexit will help to bring down the Euroreich.

MM, If Merkel is relaxed lately, she is missing the tea leaves. At some point, Greece, Italy, Turkey, France, Russia, etc. will blow up on her. The world isn't likely to be kind to her fantasies. She has consistently lied to the German people about Greece, the Euro, "refugees", etc. At some point the chickens will come home to roost. The endgame will be ugly.

Peter, unfortunately you are right. Merkel is so relaxed lately, it shows that the elections are already in her bag. It is up to the new occupier of the WH to do something about it and not to just waive a useless paper of allegedly $300 billion!

Patten has a "troubled" relationship with the truth. Quote "We know that almost half our exports go to the EU". Actually, in 2014 the percentage was 44% (and declining fairly quickly). A few useful facts.

"Exports to the European Union now account for just 12 per cent of Britain's economy and companies are looking elsewhere for trade."

"The ONS also said that British exports grew at a world-beating pace in 2015 for the first time since 2006.
It added: 'Within this the UK has seen increased trade activity in goods with non-EU countries, with their share exceeding that of EU countries in the last four years.'"

"They said the country was not reliant on the bloc and could afford to be bold in the Brexit negotiations ahead. John Longworth, former head of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: 'Exports to the EU represent an ever-smaller element of our economy but the benefits of Brexit are applicable to the whole of the economy.

Europe is a sick, troubled mess. Getting out is the sensible thing to do.
'Brexit will allow Britain to become a great trading nation once again. We need to grasp this opportunity.'"

You really need to get accurate date rather than relying on Daily Mail propaganda. While you're at it, learn some history, and maybe some economics. You bitch because you don't think your vote counts for enough: look at 52% of Americans who voted for Hillary -- admittedly no prize -- and got Trump, the least qualified president in American history.

My guess is that Brexit is an error; on the other hand, it is easy to agree with you that German immigration-refugee policy was, at best, misguided. That still doesn't justify relaying on Daily Mail propaganda as though it had any factual content.

Britain is liberating itself from the Euroreich. The Euroreich has brought poverty, tyranny, crime, and oppression to the people of Europe. Of course, the "gated community" class has prospered from imported cheap labor and infinite smugness. The people of Europe have suffered. The UK is the first nation out the door. Others will take the path of freedom, liberty, and reason and follow.

CHANGE NOT POSSIBLE - WITHOUT MELTDOWNS
Erudite as he is, the author fails to discern that Britain's greatness was achieved, DESPITE EUROPE - not because.
Brussels has produced a Map of Britain, split into Six Dioceses - With London tucked away into the County of Mercia.
Threatened by balkanization from Brussels - nearly 500 years ago - Britain eschewed Europe's embrace to create A New World.
Despite erudite wisdom that Britain was bombarded with during The Referendum - Britain Made the choice.
People saw through years of anguish that 2014 = 1814 + 1914 : The past was never past.
The Europe that benefits Europeans was never on the agenda - France and Germany have invested years in designing EU.
Otherwise Europe would have ensured that Investment Equalization - Transfer Union - became reality first and foremost.
One Language that facilitates assimilation was never on the Agenda - leaving Unlimited Migration as Europeans only option.
Whether France and Germany will now permit the floodgates of European Migration targeting The Two - will be known soon.
Whether France and Germany will now enable Transfer Union - to prevent endless migration - will also be known soon.

European Union will have to change - Lord Patten is right that Britain's interests better protected inside.
But as long as Britain was inside - Brussels would not have budged, it will be too late once Euorpe changes.
CHANGE WAS NOT POSSIBLE - without Brexit and Brexit plus plus.
CHANGE YET NOT POSSIBLE - without further Meltdowns.
CHANGE ONLY POSSIBLE - after Meltdowns.
If history is any guide.

Surprised that a 'big boy', an 'intelligent chap' like Chris Patten would run with the lemmings ... No, Britain is not going to get poorer, Britain is just going to revover its sovereignty ! And after Brexit, you will witness the 'Frexit' and then, all Nations of Europe will re-start the Alliance of European Nations on a stronger and more intelligent footing ... Because the 'globalists' act and speak as if they did not understand that indeed 98% of the European citizens (of European stock !!!) do wish a United Europe - and very strongly so - but not as we have had between 1957 and 2017 a 'Europe of Merchants and Bankers and Lobbyists and Corrupt Politicians (such as Juncker or Monti or Barroso or Schultz)'. No we European citizens are striving for the Europe of Culture, History, Christianity, Citizenry and Nations' - And we shall build it without merchants nor bankers nor lobbyists nor corrupt politicians

Chris Patten has hit the nail on the head: Brexit will make the poor poorer. And who will benefit? Those like Mr & Mrs May who have their assets nicely embedded in the London stock exchange, where the FTSE 100 is propelled ever upward by the rising value (compared to the UK pound) of the US dollar. The poor, who live from one weekly pay packet to the next, have no such cushion and will be hit hard by the UK's developing 2017 inflation. This is not such a bad deal for Britain's richer citizens: soon they will be able to plunder the poor's remaining assets at knock-down prices as distress sales boom.

Steeve : What I meant to say was that if Britain is to loose European economic and military cooperation then it would be serious loss. Erosion and ultimately loss of cultural, historical identity of GB , were to take place, it would be disastrous! Anyway, I appreciate your explanation. Thanks.

And what if the choice is only Grate Britain or Little Britain, because Great Britain did not survive WW2. Great Britain- if it existed - was current following the Battle of Trafalgar when domination of the Seas occurred, principally because of small cannon standardisation and fire rate. There is a strong argument for economically integrated Europe but the current set up is totally dysfunctional mainly due to EU expansion which as nothing to do with economics. To quote Junckers - If the EU collapses there will be war in the Balkans. In other words ex commie countries are in the EU to stop war. How exactly does that work then

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.